Recreational Hunters allowed in NSW National Parks

So if the Greens held the balance of power you'd call that a representative democracy? Don't think so. Senates in Aus are, as Keating called them, an "unrepresentative swill". If this change happened because of representative democracy at least one of the major parties would have done it on it's own instead of being held ransom by a single issue party who, if they're anything like they're Victorian equivalent, probably don't even support privatisation of state assets.

Native animals won't suffer? Go birding after the opening weekend of duck season and say that. You'll see plenty of shot protected species.

Conservation hunting of foxes, cats, rabbits etc. in Aus simply doesn't work. There's too many of them. Shooting combined with baiting and trapping can be effective but shooting on it's own can't be called conservation. And of course there's the biggest joke of all that some feral species are actually protected for large parts of the year.

As for people's safety... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-26/man-mistaken-for-deer-in-fatal-hunting-accident/919774

I can't find the official bill, but here's a few sites with more information:
http://johnrobertson.alpnsw.prod.communityengine.com/media-2/media/o-farrell-s-electricity-privatisation-will-send-bi/
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/05/31/3515093.htm

Basically he is allowing recreational hunting in 79 national parks across NSW so in return he can privatise electricity.

Responsible hunters don't hunt native animals, but how do you know for sure that some people won't kill them by accident or for fun? How do they regulate it?
That's my major problem with the bill, how are they going to regulate it to ensure pest animals are being killed as humanely as possible, and that native animals aren't being killed.
A major part of this bill relies on trust. They trust that the hunters that go into the national parks will abide by the rules and do the right thing.

They already have programs in place to control pest species where professional hunters work with park rangers to trap and kill animals. Which is why I personally don't see any advantages in letting recreational hunter into the parks, or think that it is worth the risk.

That's duck hunting, (which shooters must pass a Waterfowl Identification Test to participate in) not hunting in National Parks. Its a completely different subject.

What would you suggest? We do nothing and let native species suffer at the hands of introduced vermin? Check the Game Council harvest reports and see how many foxes have been removed from State Forests this year (for free by volunteer hunters). The fox rubbish on legs and is threatening the survival of many Australian mammals and birds including the Western Quoll, Greater Bilby, Black-footed Rock Wallaby and Long-footed Potoroo. A female fox can produce more than 20 cubs over an average lifetime of four years, with cubs beginning to eat prey from four weeks of age.
When you consider that this massive fox population consumes an average of 190 million native birds each year, building on current control efforts using licensed hunters in a more organised manner will help turn around negative environmental impacts in the long term.


Yes it can. Baiting and trapping are nowhere near as effective as ground shooting because it is an indescriminate method and does not specifically target the problem species. Methods of baiting and trapping, as employed by government departments, cannot achieve anywhere near the results of shooting, and inflict suffering on baited animal through internal bleeding.

I assume you're talking about deer, as no other feral pest has a regulated hunting season. To be correct, not all species of deer have a hunting season. The ones which do pose a smaller threat to the native environment and are managed through Quality Deer Management programs as a game species. They are not as much of a problem animal and so don't come under the same pest animal scrutiny.


So if someone dies in a car accident we ban cars before investigating the specifics? There is no indication in that report as to whether he was, or was not:

1. Hunting on private property
2. Licenced, insured or trained
3. Under the influence of any substance
4. Wearing regulation blaze orange
5. etc etc etc

So your point, essentially, proves nothing.

Because these programs don't work and even the government departments responsible admit they are losing the battle on feral animals. Licensed volunteer hunters can provide a cost efficient, safe and practical measure to deal with the 7.2 million foxes, 23 million feral pigs, 2.6 million feral goats and 18 million feral cats... to name just a few.

Silly Question but does Brumbies come under the allowed feral sprecies?

That would be New Zealand, a place where hunting in "national parks" (whatever those are) has ALWAYS been legal. Infact, New Zealanders are legally allowed to hunt on the vast majority of state owned land. But there aren't news stories about bloodbathes in the forest every weekend like you would like to believe. Just for the record, if you delve alittle deeper into that story you'll find that the moron was shooting at night, something which is illegal.
So illegal hunting at night has nothing to do with legal hunting in parks.

I'm not sure what native animals everyone thinks will be decimated by hunters, but i'm sure that noone will go looking for koala bears trying to shoot them (that should be legal though, I heard those things are vicious.) If hunters and firearms owners in Australia are anything like New Zealand they'll be (with a few exceptions to the rule) the most responsible people in. society. A least in New Zealand you have to have no criminal record, no history of mental illness, no history of drug or alcohol abuse and no history of violance. Almost sounds like a happy citizen card to me.

No it wasn't in New Zealand. It was in Australia, I just can't remember where he said it was. You must be thinking of something else.

Edit: By the way, there's not such thing as a Koala bear. They're marsupials...

Thanks for correcting me. Goes to show I know as much about animals as you know about hunting.

I'm going to take that as a compliment. I like in a town full of gun crazy hill billies, nothing better than finding a pile of dead animals, and getting to check their decomposing pouches for babies who have already been bludgeoned to death...

I don't understand. Would you prefer that people left the younger animals there to die of starvation? Oh, i have a great idea, we'll hand raise them until they're a certain age, so they live full and happy lives, THEN we kill them at that age. That would be fantastic huh? The animals get full and happy lives AND we can reduce the number of feral animals.

This is almost as good as vegetarians who don't eat meat because they're attempting to save animals. Reality check: if people didn't eat cows, there would be an awful lot less cows in the world. Same goes for sheep and pigs. Solution: Eat meat, you increase the demand for meat, you increase the number of farmed animals. You're saving animals! Yay!

Please suggest a cost effective solution to the problem if it isn't FREE volunteer hunters destroying noxious feral animals. Clearly trapping isn't working. And contract pest control costs money.So?

EDIT: Also, waiting for you to produce some evidence of the case you mentioned earlier, if it wasn't the case i mentioned.Or were you just making things up? I see alot of people making things up in anti-hunting and anti-firearms circles.